obscenity

16 cases — ← All topics

Case Title Lower Court Docketed Status Flags Tags Question Presented
25-7088 Eddie Seaton v. United States Eighth Circuit 2026-03-23 Pending Response WaivedIFP child-pornography computer-forensics due-process first-amendment obscenity possession 1. Petitioner was convicted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1) of a child pornography offense for a hand drawn cartoon image on his computer involving no real or…
24-7197 Darrin Alonzo Miller v. United States Fourth Circuit 2025-05-13 Denied Response WaivedIFP content-analysis evidence-scope first-amendment jury-determination miller-test obscenity Whether a jury, when determining whether a letter is "obscene," applying the test from Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), can consider evidence…
23-859 Zachary S. Spiegel v. United States Eleventh Circuit 2024-02-09 Denied Response Waived attempted-enticement circuit-split criminal-law criminal-statute free-speech mandatory-sentencing obscene-speech obscenity sentencing statutory-interpretation substantial-step Does speech alone (even obscene speech or "explicit sex talk") constitute the "substantial step" for a charge of attempted enticement of a minor to en…
23-6146 Catherine Denise Randolph v. United States District Court for the District of Maryland Fourth Circuit 2023-12-01 Denied IFP appellate-review civil-rights constitutional-review criminal-procedure due-process free-speech harmless-error ineffective-assistance obscenity standing state-court-decision surveillance Question not identified.
23-5383 Ramham Dupriest v. New Jersey New Jersey 2023-08-18 Denied Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP first-amendment fourteenth-amendment free-speech minor mistake-of-age obscene-material obscenity scienter I. Does it violate First Amendment free speech protections to convict a person for conduct involving distributing obscene material to a minor without …
23-5087 Michael R. v. Connecticut Connecticut 2023-07-12 Denied Response WaivedIFP child-pornography civil-rights constitutional-interpretation dost-factors due-process first-amendment free-speech miller-standard obscenity obscenity-test 1. Should the six factor analysis set forth in United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd sub nom United States v. Weigand, 812 F…
22-6519 Thomas Alan Arthur v. United States Fifth Circuit 2023-01-11 Denied Response WaivedIFP civil-rights criminal-defense defendant-rights due-process evidence-exclusion free-speech harmful-error harmless-error judicial-review miller-test obscenity obscenity-standard 1. Should this Court adopt the Seventh Circuit's rule that where a district court erroneously excludes evidence that makes up the entirety of a defend…
22-202 Leonardo Nuncio v. Texas Texas 2022-09-06 Denied constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure due-process first-amendment free-speech harassment-statute obscenity obscenity-test overbreadth texas-penal-code vagueness 1. Is Texas's obscene harassment statute (Tex. Penal Code 42.07(a)(1) and (b)(3)) unconstitutionally vague and overbroad? 2. Does the Miller v. Calif…
20-1635 Michael Anthony Casillas v. Minnesota Minnesota 2021-05-24 Denied civil-rights criminal-law criminal-statute due-process first-amendment free-speech mens-rea nonconsensual-dissemination obscenity protected-speech strict-scrutiny Does the First Amendment allow a state to criminalize protected speech by means of a statute aimed at prohibiting the nonconsensual dissemination of s…
20-7537 Christopher D. Thieme v. New Jersey New Jersey 2021-03-23 Denied Response WaivedIFP cyber-harassment due-process free-speech libel obscenity overbreadth reasonable-person-standard scienter vagueness victim-impact-statements Is New Jersey's "cyber-harassment" statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1, constitutionally invalid because it lacks a scienter requirement and relies on a "reas…
20-6289 Catherine Denise Randolph v. United States District Court for the District of Maryland Fourth Circuit 2020-11-12 Denied IFP civil-rights due-process free-speech jurisdiction obscenity public-forum What is obscenity and how can it be identified under 19 U.S.C. § 1305 of Judicial Standards? Can the Three Prong Obscenity Test (19 Miller Test) help…
19-999 Lewis Alan Dugan v. Wyoming Wyoming 2020-02-10 Denied Response Waived criminal-procedure criminal-prosecution due-process first-amendment free-speech jury-instruction obscenity overbreadth speech-conduct stalking-statute 1. Whether, in a prosecution for writing obscene letters, a trial court should instruct a jury regarding the legal definition of the term "obscene" as…
19-6100 Melvyn Perry Sprowson, Jr. v. Nevada Nevada 2019-10-01 Denied Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP ashcroft-v-free-speech-coalition child-pornography constitutional-limits facial-challenge first-amendment free-speech new-york-v-ferber obscenity obscenity-standards overbreadth sexual-abuse state-regulation Nevada defines "child pornography" to include any depiction of a minor that "appeals to a shameful or morbid interest in the sexuality of the minor an…
19-5577 Spencer Salcedo v. United States Fifth Circuit 2019-08-13 Denied Response WaivedIFP community-standards constitutional-protection due-process first-amendment free-speech hard-core-sexual-conduct obscenity obscenity-standard pornography sexual-content Whether a still image of an erect penis portrays the kind of "patently offensive," "hard core sexual conduct" that qualifies as constitutionally unpro…
18-1202 Pedro Montalvo, Jr. v. Ohio Ohio 2019-03-15 Denied 6th-amendment child-pornography computer-age constitutional-rights criminal-procedure doyle-violation due-process massiah-doctrine obscenity right-to-defense scienter sixth-amendment strict-liability 1. Whether Ohio's imposition of strict liability for even inadvertent, accidental or unknowing dissemination of child pornography violates due process…
18-6939 Jonathan S. Nelson v. Joe Norwood, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections, et al. Tenth Circuit 2018-12-07 Denied Response WaivedIFP child-pornography conviction-reversal de-novo-review due-process first-amendment obscenity scienter Concerning a violation of KSA 21-3516a(2), given that the images' nature was reasonably disputed, does the right to a de novo review demand the revers…